Local

Water at the end of the treatment process at the Torrington Water Pollution Control Authority, is send down a pipe to the Naugatuck River. Torrington, along with Danbury, Southington and Wallingford, plan to fight the DEEP's phosphorus upgrade requirements. Jim Shannon Republican-American

TORRINGTON — The city is projected to pay as much as $13.4 million in sewage plant upgrades to meet state standards for removing phosphorus from the wastewater it expels into the Naugatuck River daily unless the city can persuade state officials to revise their requirements.

The cost estimate is a sharp increase from the $1 million projection Water Pollution Control Authority Administrator Ray Drew predicted in 2009. But that was before the state revised its phosphorus standards for the city from .7 milligrams per liter to .4 milligrams per liter earlier this year, a change that will force the city to purchase new equipment it wouldn't have to buy under the .7 milligram limit.

Water expelled from the plant now contains 1.68 milligrams per liter.

City Council members on Monday voted to join a coalition of four other towns who are uniting to fight the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection standards, which were put in place to improve water quality in rivers, especially inland waterways such as the Housatonic, Quinnipiac and Naugatuck rivers. The coalition includes Danbury, Wallingford, Southington and Meriden.

"Our hope would be that we could either get back to the .7 limit or something higher than that," Drew said. "Our preference would be that we don't have a phosphorus limit."

PHOSPHORUS GETS INTO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WATER mostly through cleaning products, especially laundry detergent, from households. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has placed a high priority on removing nitrogen and phosphorus from streams nationwide, writing in a memo to the directors of state water programs last year that phosphorus aids the growth of algal blooms that "have potentially serious health and ecological effects," including killing fish and aquatic wildlife.

EPA standards on nitrogen in the state have already been implemented at a high cost, said Southington Town Manager Brumback, and towns want to avoid the same costs for phosphorus.

"It was only five or six years ago that we went through all of this with denitrifications and that was multiple millions of dollars going through that," Brumback said. "This piecemeal approach (the state is taking with phosphorus) is very, very expensive and we don't even know what's going to be next."

Brumback is referring to the town-by-town approach DEEP has been taking to ordering the reduction of phosphorus levels, which is driven by local water testing research, DEEP spokesman Dennis Schain said. In Torrington, the phosphorus level was ordered at .4 milligrams per liter but in Meriden, the limit was .2 per milligram, Brumback said.

ADDING TO THE FRUSTRATIONS, Brumback said, was that towns like Meriden had already spent money to lower phosphorus levels based on limits they received three years ago — just as Torrington saw theirs lowered from .7 to .4 within two years. Schain said the levels were changed because standards are "constantly evolving as our knowledge of wastewater treatment grows."

The coalition was developed as a way to share the costs of legal representation and scientific research into the phosphorus levels, as well as to "marshal the support of our legislative delegations. The cost right now is not to exceed $15,000 for each town, Brumback said, but the costs could rise significantly if the coalition enters into litigation, which Brumback said he hopes to avoid.

"That would significantly raise the cost, but it's not something we're afraid to do if it's necessary," Brumback said. The coalition was "designed to help encourage DEEP to come to help come to the table."

Brumback said the coalition is in negotiations with DEEP now, but he would only say that the coalition was "pushing hardest for financial responsibility on the limitations" and declined to get into detail. Schain declined to make DEEP officials involved in the negotiations available for an interview because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

"What we really want (DEEP) to do is model ourselves after some of the states that are a little more flexible like Montana, Florida, Wisconsin and New Hampshire," Brumback said. "DEEP is recognizing some of the financial concerns we have and we are optimistic."

Follow Us

blue star wrote on Nov 18, 2012 9:29 AM:

" My first thought was: let it run as is until it is time to replace the existing system, however.... As it is now they are more than 2 times over the existing limit, so the equipment is obviously not keeping up with the .7 limit.

I don't see how the existing equipment now at 1.68 is going to make .7 water. Looks like the town may be in for a new treatment plant. There is a lot of river south of Torrington which is currently open for recreation. It took decades to clean up the river. Like to see it stay that way, or improve. "

" Why should the state change the requirements for Torrington? Cities and towns downstream are still paying through the nose for having to build new, state-mandated plants. Why would they allow Torrington's waste to flow down there and undo all the hard work that's been done on the other 35 miles of river to the south? There's no reason that Torrington shouldn't have to comply. Bonding is available and the state will likely help out with some of the cost. "

Post a reader comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog. Please be civil and respectful.If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican. Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.